reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In the exchange, Speaker 0 questions whether US citizens are being surveilled today and whether the photos and data of protesters are being collected and stored in some kind of database. The interlocutor, Speaker 1, repeatedly denies these possibilities. The dialogue centers on the idea of monitoring and database tracking of protesters or Americans. Speaker 0 begins by asking: “Are you surveilling US citizens today?” to which Speaker 1 responds: “No, sir.” The line of questioning then shifts to the handling of protesters: Speaker 0 asks whether “those people protesting,” who are exercising their First Amendment rights, have had photos taken and data collected and whether that information is being placed in any kind of database. Speaker 1 answers, “There is no database for protesters, sir.” This establishes the asserted position that protest-related data is not being accumulated in a dedicated database. The discussion then foregrounds a specific allegation from Maine: Speaker 0 references “one of your officers in Maine” who said to a person protesting, “we're gonna put your face in a little database.” The implied question is about the meaning and existence of such a “little database.” Speaker 1 reiterates: “No, sir.” He adds, “We don’t.” This underscores the claim that there is no database for Americans or protesters. Speaker 0 presses further by asking, “Then what do you think your ICE agent was doing to this individual when he said those statements?” In response, Speaker 1 acknowledges an inability to speak for the individual officer but reiterates the core assertion: “I can't speak for that individual, sir, but I can assure you there is no database that's tracking United States citizens.” He closes with a direct reaffirmation, “There is no database that's tracking United States citizens.” Throughout the exchange, the central claims remain consistent: there is no surveillance program targeting US citizens in the form of a database, and there is no database for protesters. The dialogue also highlights a contrast between specific statements attributed to an officer in Maine and the official denial of any such database, with Speaker 1 insisting that they cannot speak for the individual officer while maintaining that no tracking database exists for US citizens.

Only citizens should vote in federal elections according to most speakers. Some believe proof of citizenship should be required for voter registration, while others find it redundant and discriminatory. Voter ID laws are supported by some for ensuring election integrity without disenfranchising legal voters, citing increased turnout in states with such laws.

An officer confronts a woman on the street, insisting she show identification. The officer asks for an ID multiple times, stating, “Do you have an ID on you, ma’am?” and later, “If not, we're gonna put you in the vehicle. We're gonna ID you.” The woman responds that she doesn’t need an ID to walk around in her city, and she refuses to produce any identification, saying, “I don't need to carry around an ID in my home,” and, “Not gonna give you a ID.” The officer presses, requesting the woman’s birth information as part of what he describes as an immigration check and a citizen check. He asks, “Where were you born?” and “Ma’am, can we see an ID, please?” The woman asserts her status, declaring, “I am US citizen,” and reiterates that Minneapolis is her home. She insists that this is where she belongs and that she should be allowed to walk there without fear, replying, “This is my home,” and, “I belong here. I should be walking around here at three. I shouldn't be afraid in my life at this point.” The officer continues to demand identification, stating, “Ma’am, do you have an ID to give us? Skirt? Yes. You're correct.” The woman pushes back on the line of questioning, asserting, “I am US citizen. I am US citizen. I don't think so. You have a right to picture me while I am in my home or walking around in my home. This is not acceptable.” She accuses the officers of terrorizing people, insisting, “You guys, you terrorizing people. Ma’am.” The exchange centers on the tension between civil verification checks and the woman’s insistence on her rights and belonging. As the conversation escalates, the officer reiterates the need for a birth place, while the woman remains adamant that where she was born is irrelevant to her citizenship and right to be in her home area. She maintains that she belongs there, repeatedly stating, “This I is my belong here. I'm sorry. I belong I'm not gonna take out anything. What the fuck?” The dialogue ends with the woman’s determination to resist producing any identification and a continued assertion of her US citizenship and claim to the space as her home.

**Spanish Summary:** Un grupo está registrando votantes hispanos en Phoenix. Una señora ya está registrada por su trabajo. Otra persona puso que quería votar en una aplicación, pero está esperando la residencia. Planea votar por Kamala Harris y nació en Cuba. Otra persona es residente y ya está registrada para votar por su trabajo. Otra persona no es ciudadana y ya llenó la registración. Alguien dice que el primer día van a empezar a sacar gente. **English Translation:** A group is registering Hispanic voters in Phoenix. One woman is already registered through her job. Another person indicated they wanted to vote on an application but is waiting for residency. They plan to vote for Kamala Harris and were born in Cuba. Another person is a resident and is already registered to vote through their job. Another person is not a citizen and has already filled out the registration. Someone says that on the first day, they will start removing people.

Speaker 0 asks whether you need to show ID, questions if that has a warrant, and asks if you don’t have an ID.

Speaker 0 notices: “Your trailer lights is off.” Speaker 1 responds that they’re trying to find it but can’t. Speaker 0 repeats the question and notes you don’t know where the lights are. They ask how long the CDL has been held, and Speaker 1 says two months. Speaker 0 presses: “And you don’t know where your lights is at? … How long you had your CDL?” Speaker 1 again says two months and that they’re trying to find the lights but can’t. Speaker 0 warns: “You’re driving in the dark.” Speaker 1 reiterates they’re trying to find it. Speaker 0 insists, “Listen. And you can’t be driving in the dark though. That’s crazy.” Speaker 1 says they know, they’re trying to find where the light is. Speaker 0 asks for the CDL: “Let me see your CDL.” After a moment, he says, “Never mind. You probably don’t got it.” He questions whether Speaker 1 has a CDL, then asks again to see it. Speaker 1 confirms two months with the CDL. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 is from America; Speaker 1 replies no. Speaker 0 returns the CDL and says, “Here, take your CDL back. You good.” He adds: “Listen. I don’t think you should be driving. But I’m gonna let you go though.”

Speaker 0 cautions that what you’re doing is extremely dangerous. Speaker 1 asks why it’s dangerous and replies that it’s not a conspiracy theory, and questions whether the person has $45. Speaker 1 emphasizes they are not saying people are voting there, but that people are currently registered to vote there. They state they went around Fulton County in the last few weeks and found that people are currently registered to vote in places like empty lots and homeless shelters that closed ten years ago. Speaker 1 asks what would you do if you become secretary of state to address that. Speaker 0 responds by saying they will reply to conspiracy theories. Speaker 1 reiterates that it’s not a conspiracy theory, and argues that there is a current act of voter rolls: “It’s a current you can currently go on the voter rolls, purchase them for $45, and go there with us.” They offer to take the other person to verify claims. Speaker 0 pushes back, saying they won’t respond to conspiracy theories. Speaker 1 asks how it’s a conspiracy theory, labeling it an act of voter rolls. Speaker 0 says, “If you're gonna be running for secretary of state, you're … in charge of maintaining the voter rolls. Don't you care about if people are registered to vote from empty lots?” Speaker 1 continues questioning, asking if it’s a conspiracy theory that people are registered to vote from empty lots and mentions they have the ability to go wherever they want. They reiterate that people are currently registered to vote in empty lots, MARTA bus stations, and elsewhere in Fulton County, and asks if the other person will not do anything about that, calling back the accusation of conspiracy theories. Speaker 1 asks for the exact addresses and notes: “205 Elm Street Northwest. That’s an empty lot. You can go there right now and see it for yourself.” They press: do you not care about that? You’re an elected official, and you don’t wanna address that? They argue that as a potential secretary of state, one should address maintaining clean voter rolls in one of the United States’ most important counties. Speaker 0 repeats that what you’re doing is extremely dangerous. Speaker 1 insists it’s not a conspiracy theory and repeats that people are currently registered to vote there, highlighting the $45 purchase of voter rolls and the need to clean the rolls, including registrations from empty lots and a MARTA station. The exchange ends with Speaker 1 noting that they are trying to have the rolls cleaned, and pointing to the claim of conspiracy theory, and suggesting to actually verify the situation.

They had a voter ID the size of citizens, like a picture with all their information. It was required to enter the convention, but we don't want voter ID for voting.

I'm Rosemary Jenks from the Immigration Accountability Project. We estimate 30 million non-citizens in the US who can't vote. The Biden administration's order tells federal agencies to offer voter registration to everyone. State officials can't ask for citizenship proof on federal forms. Non-citizens like asylum seekers or foreign students may mistakenly register to vote, risking deportation for voting unlawfully.

They go to the New York City Board of Elections office at 200 Varick Street, 10th Floor, in New York, NY, planning to pose as a non-citizen, Canadian green card holder to see how far they can get in the voter registration process. They note that a clerk initially says you must be a citizen to fill out the registration, but another clerk claims they “accept anything that comes over the counter” and that there are people who have legal situations and registered when they weren’t a citizen. The first clerk’s behavior raises concern: he does not tell them it would be illegal to complete the application as a noncitizen, only that he wouldn’t recommend it. The participants press for clarity. The first clerk admits that “we can’t stop you from submitting the application and if it goes through, but most likely because they don’t do like a full background check,” and adds that “once in a while, you know, we have people who come in here and they have legal situations and they registered, they weren’t a citizen, boom, boom, boom.” The participants quote that as a direct admission that non-citizens are in fact registering to vote. One participant asks if they can fill out the form, and the clerk responds: “Up to you. That’s right. I can’t tell you what to do. You wanna fill that, fill it out. But everything is clear clearly stated, especially at this bottom, it says American citizens.” The participant asks if the clerk would report them; the clerk says “No. No. No. I’m not, no. I’m not that’s not my job to report anyone. My job is just to collect the application and put it and submit it to the department.” The clerk adds that they “accept anything that comes over the counter, you know.” Under New York election law, section 17-106, it is stated that “any election officer who willfully violates any provision of the election law relative to the registration of electors is guilty of a felony.” The participants note it would be a criminal offense for the worker to process their voter registration after admitting to being a noncitizen. They ask if they can take materials with them and the clerk confirms they can “take one of these.” The participants are told that they can fill out the form, and if it comes back or doesn’t, they will submit it; the clerk reiterates that they “can’t do our background check on you. We just collect it.” On leaving, they decide not to submit any application, since doing so would be illegal. They later return to gather more information, but the worker becomes suspicious, consults a coworker, and then changes his stance and refuses to accept the application. They observe that at these centers, there is no requirement to show ID, Social Security, or any proof of identification; all you have to do is sign an affidavit stating you are an American citizen. They describe this as a potential threat to the integrity of the U.S. electoral system. They conclude with the implication that non-citizen registrations have occurred and question how many such forms have been processed.

Speaker 0 notices the trailer lights are off and asks Speaker 1 to find them, emphasizing that driving in the dark is unsafe. Speaker 1 repeats that he doesn’t know where the lights are and has been trying to locate them. Speaker 0 questions how long Speaker 1 has had his CDL, and Speaker 1 responds two months. Speaker 0 expresses disbelief that someone with a two-month CDL doesn’t know where the lights are, noting that he has been driving in the dark and stressing that it’s not acceptable. Speaker 1 reiterates that he’s trying to find the lights but cannot. Speaker 0 scolds him for driving in the dark and asks if he truly has a CDL, stating that he doesn’t want to be rude but implies that Speaker 1 may be causing an accident. Speaker 1 acknowledges awareness of the potential danger but continues to say he’s trying to locate the light. Speaker 0 asks to see Speaker 1’s CDL and then abruptly dismisses the request, muttering that perhaps Speaker 1 doesn’t have it. He repeats the question about the CDL and asks where it is, suggesting that the two-month CDL might not be valid or real. Speaker 1 confirms again that he has had the CDL for two months. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 is from here or from America, indicating a language or origin line of questioning, and then hands the CDL back to Speaker 1, telling him to take it back and that he’s good to go but reiterates that he doesn’t think Speaker 1 should be driving. In closing, Speaker 0 reiterates his concern and lets Speaker 1 leave, acknowledging that he is not going to stop him but making it clear that he does not believe Speaker 1 should be driving. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 warning again that driving in the present condition is unsafe and implying that Speaker 1 may be unfit to operate a vehicle.

The video documents an undercover-style investigation at the New York City Board of Elections on the 10th Floor at 200 Varick Street, focusing on whether noncitizens can register to vote. Speaker 0 plans to pose as a noncitizen Canadian green-card holder and attempts to engage a staffer about voter registration. In the first encounter, Speaker 2 tells Speaker 1 that “Everything you fill out, you’re swearing an affidavit that everything you’re putting down is true,” and notes that “you gotta be a citizen to fill it out.” Speaker 1 identifies as “a green card holder from Canada.” The staffer initially signals uncertainty about whether to fill out the form, saying, “I wouldn’t fill it out,” but also suggests the possibility that noncitizens have previously registered. Speaker 0 observes that the staffer does not state it would be illegal to complete the application as a noncitizen, only that the staffer “doesn’t recommend it.” The conversation reveals that the staffer acknowledges noncitizens have registered before: “We have people who come in here and they have legal situations and they registered, they weren’t a citizen, boom boom boom.” The staffer also admits that they “can’t stop you from submitting the application,” and that there is generally no full background check; “we can’t do our background check on you. We just collect it. That’s it.” Speaker 2 reinforces that the staff’s role is to collect and submit, not to verify citizenship, stating, “we accept anything that comes over the counter,” and reiterating that “if it comes back to you, it comes back to… If it doesn’t, it doesn’t.” When Speaker 1 asks if they will report the noncitizen, the staffer responds, “No. No. No. I’m not… that’s not my job to report anyone. My job is just to collect the application and put it and submit it to the department.” Speaker 0 cites New York election law—“Under New York election law, section seventeen one zero six, any election officer who willfully violates any provision of the election law relative to the registration of electors is guilty of a felony”—to argue that processing a noncitizen registration would be a criminal offense. After leaving the office, the pair return to request more information, but the staffer becomes suspicious, consults a coworker, and then refuses to accept their application. The video notes that, according to the staff, “we get registrations come to the mail. We, you know, we whatever comes through, we accept and then it’s submitted,” and emphasizes the absence of ID or proof of citizenship requirements at registration, solely requiring an affidavit asserting citizenship. The segment concludes by highlighting concerns about potential threats to electoral integrity, asserting that there is no requirement to show ID or documentation to register, and that all that is required is signing an affidavit claiming American citizenship.

We allow people without addresses to use our address for voting and getting state IDs. This caused suspicion during the election, but no issues arose. Having an address is crucial for getting an ID, so we've been providing this service for years. Recently, we discovered thousands of people using our address as their mailing address.

Speaker 0 asks for an ID from Speaker 1, insisting, “Do you have an ID on you, ma'am?” Speaker 1 replies, “I don't need a ID to walk around in in my city.” Speaker 0 presses for IDs, warning, “If not, we're gonna put you in the vehicle. We're gonna ID you.” Speaker 1 refuses, saying, “I don't need to take out you take out your ID.” Speaker 0 presses again: “Hey, ma'am.” Speaker 1 asserts, “It's ma'am. Am US citizen. I am US citizen.” Speaker 0 asks, “Alright. Can we see an ID, please?” Speaker 1 repeats, “I am US citizen. I don't need to carry around an ID in my home. Well, where were born?” Speaker 0 questions, “Where were you born?” Speaker 1 responds, “This is my home,” and then, “Minneapolis is my home.” Speaker 0 clarifies, “Ma'am, that's not that's we're doing an immigration check. We're doing a citizen check. We're asking you where you were born.” Speaker 1 insists, “This is where I belong. This is my home.” Speaker 0 pushes, “Ma'am, can belong here, but where were you born? Not gonna give you a ID.” Speaker 1 repeats, “I belong here. I should be walking around here at three. I shouldn't be afraid in my life at this point.” Speaker 0 presses, “Ma'am, do you have an ID to give us? Skirt? Yes. You're correct.” Speaker 1 protests, “You're making me a skirt. You're making me a Do you have an ID?” Speaker 0 again asks for an ID, and Speaker 1 repeats, “This is my home.” Speaker 0 states, “Ma'am, where were you born?” Speaker 1 responds, “I am US citizen. I am US citizen. I don't think so. You have a right to picture me while I am in my home or walking around in my home. This is not acceptable.” Speaker 0 continues, “You guys, you terrorizing people.” Speaker 1 emphasizes, “Ma'am And it's not.” Speaker 0 asks again, “Where were you born?” Speaker 1 states, “It doesn't matter where I was born. Belong here. I am US citizen.” She adds, “What else can I say? I am citizen. This is my home.” Speaker 0 warns, “Menia realize that if… [you] lie,” and Speaker 1 reiterates, “Menia, but this is my home.” Eventually Speaker 1 declares, “I am US citizen. I am not gonna take out anything. What the fuck?”

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the UK government’s rollout of a national digital ID, presenting it as imminent and not merely a future possibility. Speaker 0 states that the government is rolling out a national digital ID in the UK and asserts it is happening now, not something to consider for someday. Speaker 1 reinforces the opposition to digital ID, urging a rejection of it. Speaker 0 reports that they are outside BBC Broadcasting House for a digital ID protest, framing the event as a mobilization against the rollout. Speaker 1 warns that saying yes to digital ID could lead to an inability to say no to the government ever again, not just to the current government but to future ones unknown. Speaker 0 recalls assurances that national ID cards were dead and not representative of Britain, noting that the modern version is not a plastic card but a “live connection.” Speaker 1 calls on people to raise their heads out of complacency, asserting that humans are not data and emphasizing that the issue concerns everyone’s freedom. Speaker 0 contends that what is happening is an attempt to funnel humanity into being a number, implying a loss of individuality. Speaker 1 describes a future where the ability to earn, move, buy, or speak is not a right but a permission, and permissions can be switched off, framing this as a consequence of Digital ID. Speaker 0 summarizes the topic as Digital ID: how it started, how it is being sold, and what life looks like behind a biometric paper.

Speaker 0 explains that under that scenario, someone could get their driver's license again because they register to vote. If the Social Security number doesn’t match, they’re flagged, but as long as they have an ID (the driver’s license) and sign that they’re eligible to vote, they can vote, and they’re no longer flagged. They would be on the system, correct, Mister Lanell. Speaker 1 responds: Madam chair, if I could add, and maybe stepping back from those that are flagged as CID on the roster, for anyone presenting documentation to register to vote, that is an affirmation of their identity. The driver’s license has not been used as proof of citizenship for the purposes of registering to vote—affirming that they are who they say they are. So in any of these cases where someone were to cast a ballot if they were ineligible to vote, there are also reports that are generated post election for voters that are challenged. Counties will run to show status of voters that had been updated due to the fact that they’ve now cast a ballot, and that can be reviewed and referred to the county attorney. Speaker 0 concludes: Okay. So the answer is yes to my question.

Anna, a noncitizen who has lived in the US for 25 years, encourages other noncitizens in DC to register to vote. She learned that she is eligible to vote in DC and was excited by the prospect. Another speaker highlights that DC has a large immigrant population that lacks deserved representation. Noncitizens in DC who have resided there for at least 30 days and do not intend to vote elsewhere are encouraged to register and make their voices heard. Information on registration can be found on the board of elections website.

Speaker 0 warns that what you’re doing is extremely dangerous, and questions why it is dangerous. Speaker 1 challenges this by asking why it would be dangerous, and clarifies that they are not saying people are voting in certain places, but that people are currently registered to vote there. Speaker 2 interjects, referencing a recent sweep around Fulton County. Speaker 1 reiterates: they see that people are currently registered to vote in places like empty lots and homeless shelters that closed ten years ago, and asks what the other speaker would do if they became secretary of state to address that. Speaker 0 responds that the other party will have to reply to conspiracy theories. Speaker 1 counters that it is not a conspiracy, describing it as a current situation: people are currently registered to vote there, and it’s possible to purchase voter rolls for $45 to verify this. They insist they are not saying people are voting there, but that people are currently registered to vote there, and they reference Jason as the person who can verify that. They further state they will gladly take the other speaker to see if it’s true, arguing that if someone is running for secretary of state, they are in charge of maintaining the voter rolls. Speaker 0 continues to label the claim as dangerous and as conspiracy theory. Speaker 1 again emphasizes that they are not alleging people are voting there, but that people are currently registered to vote there. They reiterate that it took $45 to purchase the voter rolls, and that the same could be done for Fulton County. They mention specific locations where people are allegedly registered to vote: empty lots and a MARTA bus station, and ask whether the other speaker will address that instead of labeling it conspiracy theories. They reference the existence of a death address, 205 Elm Street Northwest, described as an empty lot that one could visit to verify the claim. They ask whether the other speaker, as an elected official who might become secretary of state, cares about ensuring clean voter rolls in a county considered one of the most important in the United States. Speaker 0 maintains that the other party’s approach is dangerous. Speaker 1 repeats the core assertion: it’s not a conspiracy, it’s a current condition where people are registered to vote in empty lots, a MARTA bus station, and other locations, and stresses that the issue is about maintaining clean voter rolls. The exchange cycles through insistence that “people are currently registered to vote there,” the availability of voter-roll data for verification, and the imperative for someone who could be secretary of state to address the integrity of the rolls rather than dismissing the claim as conspiracy theory.

My colleagues claim that common sense voting laws, like requiring a government ID, are racist. I have multiple government IDs, showing personal responsibility. I have a global entry card, military ID, Texas driver's license, license to carry, congressional card, and passport. Obtaining these IDs is not impossible, it's personal responsibility. I fought for this country as a helicopter pilot to protect free and fair elections. Having a government ID is not racist, it's American. Translation: My colleagues argue that basic voting laws, such as needing a government ID, are discriminatory. I have various government IDs, demonstrating personal responsibility. I possess a global entry card, military ID, Texas driver's license, license to carry, congressional card, and passport. Acquiring these IDs is not impossible, it's about personal responsibility. I served as a helicopter pilot to defend free and fair elections. Having a government ID is not discriminatory, it's American.

A crowd gathered at the Saint Paul Armory after the governor signed a measure making driver's licenses available broadly, described as “driver’s licenses for all,” effectively serving as a photo ID for all residents, regardless of citizenship. The discussion then centers on how these licenses interact with voting and registration processes. One speaker notes that if someone comes in with a driver’s license, they would receive a photo ID and register accordingly, even if their social security number is incorrect or missing. The concern raised is whether that person, after obtaining a driver’s license, could then cast a vote despite incomplete registration information. The dialogue explores the potential for a non-citizen who possesses a driver’s license to participate in elections. In response, another participant—referred to as the chair—addresses the procedure for handling incomplete registrations. The chair explains that the designation on the roster for someone whose registration is incomplete can be resolved if the person presents an acceptable identification document. In such a case, the challenge from the roster would be cleared, and the individual would be permitted to cast a ballot. A subsequent aside acknowledges the potential problem inherent in this approach, with a speaker named Anderson prompting clarification. The core question remains: could a person who is not a citizen, but who presents a driver’s license at the voting point, be permitted to vote? The chair provides a definitive statement regarding eligibility: at both the time of registration and at the time of submitting a ballot, every voter signs an attestation affirming their eligibility to vote, including that they meet all eligibility requirements that they are a US citizen. This underscores the requirement that, despite the availability of driver’s licenses to a broad population, the attestation of citizenship remains a binding condition for voting. The exchange highlights a tension between broad ID access and the constitutional requirement of citizenship for voting, with the chair reiterating that citizenship is required to vote, even if driver’s licenses are issued more inclusively.

Some believe that many millennials, dreamers, and undocumented people, who contribute to the country, are fearful of voting because they worry immigration will find them and deport their families. One speaker claims that this is untrue because voting is confidential and voting rolls are not transferred for investigation. Another speaker expresses disbelief, stating that the President is questioning whether an illegal person is voting, and reminding people that only citizens can vote. The speaker believes the President is saying not to worry about being caught for illegal voting. The speaker emphasizes that undocumented people cannot vote because they are not citizens.

The first speaker describes a scenario in which a person can obtain a driver’s license again because licenses are issued broadly to those who register to vote. If the individual’s Social Security number does not match, they are flagged, but as long as they present an ID (the driver’s license) and sign that they are eligible to vote, they can vote and are no longer flagged, remaining in the system. Mister Lanell then responds by clarifying the process. He says that for anyone presenting documentation to register to vote, that documentation serves as affirmation of their identity. He notes that the driver’s license has not been used as proof of citizenship for the purposes of registering to vote; rather, it affirms that the person is who they say they are. He adds that in any case where someone were to cast a ballot, if they were ineligible to vote, there are reports generated post-election for voters who are challenged. Counties run these reports to show the status of voters that had been updated due to having cast a ballot, and these reports can be reviewed and referred to the county attorney. The first speaker concludes by restating the original question and provides a direct answer: the answer is yes to their question.

Many people we serve use our address for voter registration and state IDs since they lack addresses. This practice has been ongoing without issue until recently when concerns were raised. Despite this, having an address is crucial for obtaining an ID. We have always allowed this and have noticed a significant number of people using our address for mail. This has raised some questions about the extent of this practice.

I'm pleased with the Supreme Court's quick decision today, which upholds the law regarding noncitizens in Virginia. Thanks to Attorney General Jason Miyares and his team for their excellent work. This ruling clarifies that individuals who self-identify as noncitizens will not be allowed to vote unless they can prove their citizenship. The current voter rolls remain unchanged, and the 1,600 individuals identified as noncitizens will not be reinstated. However, anyone who can attest to their citizenship can register on the same day and cast a provisional ballot. It's crucial for all citizens to participate in this important election, as the future of the country is at stake. I encourage everyone to vote.

Speaker 0 says they currently cannot [do something] because they lack documentation, but will in March. Speaker 1 asks why Kamala. Speaker 0 says they see many opportunities in Kamala and have been more with immigrants than trans people, expressing doubt. They mention being told they could vote as a migrant and have an ID from the city. They got an appointment through an organization, attended, and received the ID after fifteen days. **English Translation:** Speaker 0 says they cannot currently [do something] due to lack of documentation, but will in March. Speaker 1 asks why Kamala. Speaker 0 says they see many opportunities in Kamala and have been more involved with immigrants than trans people, expressing doubt. They mention being told they could vote as a migrant and possess a city ID. They obtained an appointment through an organization and received the ID after fifteen days.